Students are heading
back to college, but I don't expect to see any new
campus hate crime hoaxes until spring. The simple
reason: spring is hoax season. Who wants to march and
protest out in the cold?

But last spring saw a
bumper crop! And this year, there will no doubt be
more—because of the dynamics of
"diversity" in Obama's Brave New America.

It's important to
remember that the
Hate Crime hysteria
has real (white) victims. My May 26 VDARE.COM story,
Report from Occupied America: Free the Mizzou Two! , told the increasingly common tale of two young men at University
of Missouri Columbia ("Mizzou"),
arrested,
indicted, and coerced into copping guilty pleas, who
hadn't committed any crimes—beyond being white, male,
and heterosexual.

Meanwhile, Mizzou does
have a serious problem—violent black crimes against
members of the university community on and near campus.
But university chancellor Brady Deaton, who denounced
the innocent Mizzou Two, is silent about that.

Hate U.

Between late January and
late March of this year, black students on seven
different college campuses in Ohio, California, Missouri
and Tennessee were the victims of
"hate crimes".

Just kidding!

Except that the people
behind these
"hate crimes", all obvious hoaxes, aren't laughing.
They seek to intimidate, disenfranchise, and imprison
people who have broken no laws, based solely on the
color of the latter's skin—and at the same time extort
huge sums of money and take over their respective
campuses.

The real campus racism
story, the one the MainStream Media refuse to tell, is
one of black racial animus.

The past 23 years have seen one
black race hoax
after another, on and off campus. Though many of these "hate
crimes" remain technically "unsolved,"
I don't know of any claims by campus
"blacks"
(or their non-black leftist comrades) that
weren't
hoaxes. Thus the
rational response to each lurid new claim should be
skepticism—on a par with what we bring to the daily
e-mails promising us millions of dollars.

And yet each new claim
is treated by college administrators, police, and the
media, as if no black race hoaxes had ever been exposed.

In a
March 26 email
to the UT Knoxville campus community, Chancellor
Jimmy Cheek [Email
him]decried
at least four recent incidents involving
"derogatory and racist language" written on dorm posters, etc.,
and was reportedly
"calling for
change":

"We will not tolerate disrespect, racism or bias on our campus. One
of my top priorities as chancellor is to increase
diversity on our campus, and one of the best ways to do
that is to create and maintain a welcoming campus
climate for all."

On July 21,
another noose hoax hit UC San Diego.
But since most students and university personnel,
and even many journalists were off on vacation, it
had minimal effect. Summer race hoaxes simply aren't
noose-worthy.

Media support:
The MSM opposed California's 1996 anti-affirmative
action Prop. 209 and have sought to destroy it ever
since its enactment, and thus devoted credulous,
saturation coverage to the UCSD hoaxes;

Help on the Ground III:
Chancellor Fox exploited the situation by illegally
"investigating"
perfectly lawful behavior by white students, and by
entering into negotiations with, and
signing an agreement with the BSU,
that violated the California Constitution and white
students' Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Her
administration conspired to cover up the true nature of
the incidents by manipulating the UCSD Police
Department, and withholding information. Instead of
investigating the BSU students for possible race hoaxes
and conspiracy to commit extortion, and arresting them
for trespassing and vandalism, Fox praised them. She
seeks to impose a joint Fox-BSU dictatorship on the
school;

"In regards to your inquiry on the recent incidents at
the University of California San Diego, the case having
to do with a noose found in the library remains open and
is under active investigation. We cannot comment for
that reason."

Coburn [Email
her]
repeated her claim, during an April 1 telephone
conversation, that the case was still
"under investigation," adding,
"we are in the process of reviewing the case." When I interjected,
"reviewing, but
not investigating?" she switched to
"it's an
investigation and a review of the case."

I pointed out to her that the UCSD PD had completed the
investigation, and handed over its case file and
evidence to the City Attorney's office on March 2.
Coburn acknowledged that, but stayed on message.

I retorted, "I've never
heard of a case where a white suspect was alleged to
have committed a hate crime, in which his name was
suppressed. Ever."

Apparently, City Attorney Goldsmith does not believe that the Hate
Crime law applies to non-whites. His illegal suppression
of the confessed noose-hanger's name was, I believe,
part of a strategy to
"disappear"
the crime. The legal term for that is
"conspiracy to
obstruct justice."

Campus Civil Liberties, R.I.P.

In mid-February,
Chancellor Fox announced that she was investigating, and
looking to discipline white fraternity members who, she
said, had advertised the "Compton
Cookout." But as the Foundation of Individual Rights
in Education's (FIRE) Director of Legal and Public
Advocacy, Will Creeley, pointed out
in a February 23 letter to Fox, for her even to
"investigate,"
much less discipline the fraternities, would violate
their constitutional rights.

In a
February 22 letter
to Gupta and Fox, Adam Kissel,
the director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense
Program, argued that Gupta's actions in shutting down
student media were
"unconstitutional
and morally questionable."

After FIRE's Creeley and
Kissel, and David Blair-Loy, the legal director of the
ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, notified
Chancellor Fox that she was violating the law, she
ignored them (and UCSD spokesman Rex Graham declined to
respond to them), but quietly removed her threats.

However, whites on
campus still do not know their rights. At this point, it
will likely require the UCSD administration losing a
multimillion-dollar lawsuit, to change how it does
business.

Thus far, no individual
or group has announced plans to file such a suit, and
Creeley told me that FIRE does not engage in litigation.

On
February 22,
23 (PDF),
and 24 (PDF),
the ACLU's Blair-Loy wrote variously to Chancellor Fox
and student government president Utsav Gupta, pointing
out that they were violating students' First Amendment
rights.

But those letters were
contradicted, and thus neutralized, by a
February 25
letter from
Andrea Guerrero,
the policy & field director of the same ACLU branch, and
a longtime, embittered foe of Prop. 209, heartily
supporting Fox' illegal, racist, anti-civil liberties
campaign, and offering the ACLU's help, in implementing
it!

In March, despite
leaving detailed voice and e-mail messages at the ACLU's
national media office in New York, and speaking with
someone there named
"Pam" about
the UCSD and Mizzou cases, I never got a response.

But that was not
surprising. In February, I had asked
"Pam" for a
statement regarding the terrorist threats that had
caused four hotels in a row to cancel their bookings for
the
American Renaissance
conference.
She never responded the either.

The knowledge that the
"Compton
Cookout" was the work of a black comedian, whose stage name is
Jigaboo Jones,
and that the noose was probably hung by a
"minority
student," had no effect on the black students,
Chancellor Fox or, for that matter, the media.

But say that white
students had indeed committed the acts in question—save
for the noose:
They weren't crimes anyway!Only the noose
was illegal, due to
an unconstitutional state law
that blacks had demanded, and that the race
hoax-mongering (here and
here)
NAACP had sponsored (PDF),
following a wave of black noose hoaxes—do I detect a
pattern here? And that was only a misdemeanor.

Conversely, virtually
all of
the black students' 32 demands
were illegal. They entail giving unqualified black
students and personnel huge sums of money, admissions,
and jobs, based solely on the color of their skin, in
violation of the California Constitution and the
Fourteenth Amendment; instituting
segregation
(a "safe space"
for black students), in violation of historic Supreme
Court precedents; and violating white students' First,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The BSU depicted UCSD—where white-on-black crime is virtually
non-existent—as a place where blacks are unsafe, and
where vague "racial tension" rules, which the
administration must somehow cause to disappear.

The UCSD Police
Department, which has jurisdiction for all on-campus
matters, is supposed to be a professional, independent
police agency, but on March 11, I learned otherwise.
When I asked to speak with a Department public
information officer, I was transferred to Rex Graham, [Email
him]
at UCSD Communications and Public Affairs. The interview
consisted of my asking one question after another, and
Graham refusing to answer me.

Graham claimed that he
couldn't so much as tell me the race or ethnicity of the
noose-hanger. But according to the booklet,
Covering Campus Crime
published by the Student Press Law Center (who can't
help their
initials),
that was untrue. No law prohibited him from giving me
that information. More importantly, since the perp has
now confessed to committing a crime, UCSD is legally
obligated to release her name and other information
about her.

If UCSD is hiding the
name of a confessed criminal—even if the law in question
is obscene and unconstitutional, and the crime only a
misdemeanor—UCSD is, at the very least, violating the federal Clery Act,
and at worst, engaged in a felonious conspiracy to
obstruct justice. Chancellor Marye Anne Fox [Email
her]
should at least be fired, and at worst be arrested and
prosecuted.

Nevertheless, the UCSD
race hoaxes were so successful that on March 24
the UC Board of Regents "apologized"
for the (non-existent) white hate crimes against black
students, and proposed reintroducing affirmative action
at UCSD (which it already did last year at UC Berkeley
and UCLA), via the euphemism
"holistic review"
of applications. Someone will have to sue the Regents,
in order to stop their illegal actions.

If Chancellor Fox is not stopped from acceding to the black students'
illegal demands, she will turn UCSD into a diversitopia.

Footnote: UCSD's handling of a May 10 incident dispelled any last doubt that
Fox had any principles, as opposed to leftwing
loyalties.

During the Q&A following
a David Horowitz speech, an Arab Muslim coed named Jumanah Imad Albahri
made the mistake of trying to intimidate him.
He turned the tables on her, and in a Perry Mason
moment, got her to admit,
on camera,
that she supports genocide against all Jews, worldwide.

UCSD's response was
underwhelming. Albahri lied, in insisting that her
remark did not represent her true beliefs, and made a
non-apology-apology condemning Horowitz. Even though the
entire exchange had been captured on camera,
the administration gave her a pass.

Radical Muslims
are part of the multicultural alliance; thus the UCSD
administration sees them as allies, whereas it sees
white, heterosexual, Christian men—unless they wage war
on their own—as enemies.

Identity "Crimes"

Normally law enforcement
authorities typically
start with a
crime, and then investigate said crime, in order to
hopefully determine the identities of the perpetrators,
and to arrest and prosecute the latter. But that isn't
the way things typically work when police say that they
are
"investigating a possible bias crime." In such
cases, either:

No crime was committed, but police are seeking to
intimidate whites (but never blacks) out of
exercising their legal rights;

As in the UCSD noose case, a statute (which may be
unconstitutional) may have been violated, but the
authorities will only arrest and railroad someone
(e.g., a white, Christian, male heterosexual) not
from an unconstitutionally
"protected
class."

"In three separate attacks, a mob of seven young black men—students
and non-students—beat up a total of five white Columbia
University men students.

"Following a by now
dog-eared script, a group called Concerned Black Students at Columbia (CBSC),
represented by
"activist attorney" C. Vernon Mason, claimed that "a mob of white students had kicked
and stomped a single black student and then went on a
rampage shouting, 'We're going to kill you f——g n——s!'"

"Although 22 witnesses had already contradicted the black
attackers' claims, the latter were never arrested, and
indeed, demanded that their white victims be arrested.

"When CBSC held
mini-riots, in which as many as 50 supporters, black and white alike, were
arrested, protesting "against racial violence" and
against the failure of the NYPD
to follow their demand that police arrest the white
victims, Columbia responded by promising more
affirmative action in
admissions and faculty hiring.

"The Columbia race hoax received months-long saturation coverage by
the national media; once the hoax was exposed, the media
went silent.

"Black students at six other East Coast university campuses,
including Duke, were inspired to take over campus
buildings. In each case, the black students decried
"resurgent [white] racism" on campus
and demanded and got concessions from the institution in
question in the form of expanded affirmative action for
black student applicants and professors.

"There was a campus racism problem, alright, but it was that of
resurgent black racism."

In 1993,
a black security guard managed to get three white
man undergraduates who worked for the school escort
service fired, based on a fake
"racism"
charge;

(An escort service for students means a guard service
that walks them from place to place late at night, to
keep them safe, not what it means for adults like, say Eliot Spitzer. Q: Why is this service necessary
for Columbia University? A: because it's located near
Harlem.)

Around the same time, a black Columbia Law student claimed, without
a shred of evidence, that a third-year, white man
classmate, a devout Catholic, had made an obscene
telephone call to her late at night. Columbia's
counsel turned the burden of proof upside down,
making the impossible demand that the man prove that
he was not
guilty. Only when the white man's lawyer threatened
to sue Columbia did the school drop its persecution
campaign.
[Diversity at Columbia U.: When
"Chocolate"
and "Vanilla"
are Fighting Words (PDF)
by Jeffrey M. Duban,
Heterodoxy,
January 1995.].

Though no one cited any
laws that had been broken, the
NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force
and three different DOJ agencies investigated. The MSM
promoted the myth that white racists had been planting
nooses all over the country. The evildoer was never
brought to justice.

When Columbia finally
fired Constantine in August, 2008, she asserted that she
was the victim of a racist conspiracy,
"structural
racism," and an
"academic
lynching,"
and sued Teacher's College for $200 million.
(The suit is pending.)

And yet, none of these
black attacks, as opposed to the black race hoaxes, has
ever issued in
rallies,
"bias crime" charges, public denunciations by law enforcement or
colleges, or saturation coverage by the MSM.

Fred Reed
recently defined
affirmative action as
"the calculated
recruitment of incompetence." But since the myth of
white discrimination against blacks is the entire
rationale for Affirmative Action, multiculturalism
requires constant race hoaxes in order to generate its
talking points.

Affirmative Action
has always been inseparable from the project of
expanding racial power bases. Little work is expected of
AA hires,
leaving them
ample leisure for making racist mischief.
In addition to hiring racist black professors to fill
departments of pseudo-scholarship, universities hire
racist black counselors and officials to staff the
bureaucratic underworld (e.g.,
"Student Life",
the office that "investigated"
white UCSD fraternity members). FIRE's founders,
historian Alan Charles Kors and
lawyer Harvey J. Silverglate, dubbed this
"the Shadow University"
in their eponymous, landmark book. Over the past 20
years or more, administrations have ruthlessly reduced
their proportions of full-time faculty,
while
massively expanding their hiring
of the highly-paid, full-time"Shadow
University" personnel, who promote racial
intimidation (e.g.,
"sensitivity training").
This group benefits directly from Hoax Crimes

Diversity or University, That is the Question

One of the central
experiences of higher education is coming into contact
with ideas one disagrees with. White students know this
experience in spades. Conversely, however, black and
Hispanic students are simply provided with an echo
chamber for their own prejudices. And now, though they
break no laws, whites who criticize or mock those
prejudices face arrest.

For all of the talk of
its enriching qualities, college
"diversity"
almost always means the admission of black and Hispanic
students and staff who are cognitively and morally unfit
for college life.

The demand by UCSD's
black students, like black students elsewhere, that all
campus whites be forced to submit to their will, was the
expression of their moral unfitness to function in a
university setting. They insist that the university be
transformed into
the antiversity:
Jim Snow U.

That they are not
expelled and arrested for their crimes, is evidence that
the white bureaucrats running schools like UCSD and
Columbia are likewise morally unfit for college life